I sent a copy of the letter below to the customer services email address
for Milton Keynes Council, Mark Lancaster who is the Conservative MP
for the North of Milton Keynes & Peter Marland who is the Labour
party leader of Milton Keynes Council on the 6th of May & none of
them have replied.

The international biomedical
research community has made it quite clear that radio-frequency radiation,
and specifically cellular radio-frequency radiation, can harm people
in an enormous number of ways. Most recently the National Institutes
of Health linked cellular radiation to brain cancer (glioma) which is
usually fatal, and to a nerve cancer (schwannoma) that can be fatal.
That is, the scientific evidence suggests that we must treat radio-frequency
radiation, and in particular cellular radiation, not only as dangerous
to health generally, but also as a CARCINOGEN that is dangerous to life
itself.So, when a small cell tower is placed “up close and personal”
to people, those people must be regarded as under “assault”
by a carcinogen. And, there are laws against assault. Further, since
that assault can result in death, those people must be considered as
under “assault with a deadly weapon”. That is also against
the law. Furthermore, if any of those people die as the result of that
assault, that is “murder”. Murder is also against the law.
http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2011/pdfs/pr208_E.pdf

So, it seems fair to ask
this question: Was the 1996 Telecommunications Act so powerful that
it overrides the laws against assault, assault with a deadly weapon,
and murder? I doubt very much that the authors of the 1996 Telecommunications
Act, in their zeal to promote the rapid expansion of cellular technology
without prior testing for safety, intended to convey a right to the
telecommunications industry to assault, and even kill, people.

So, can we take the “Precautionary
Principle ” approach to 5G technology?

Which holds that society
does NOT need absolute proof of hazard to place limits on a given technology,
if the evidence is sufficiently solid and the risks sufficiently great,
the precautionary principle calls for the delaying of deployment of
that technology until further research clarifies its impact.

The National Infrastructure
Commission has claimed that in order to facilitate 5G technology the
UK would need to place small cell towers every 100/300 metres.

If Milton Keynes council
officials want to protect the public from harm, they need to rally their
legal might to resist ALL EFFORTS to install small cell towers in the
area, not just because that is the right thing to do, but also because
such installation violates multiple existing laws that are reasonably
believed to be preeminent.

I would be proud to see Milton
Keynes Council take the lead in making this argument against the 1996
Telecommunications Act, which has proved to be an unjust law.

If you don’t believe
that cellular radiation is harmful

If you reject the above line
of reasoning because you don’t believe that cellular radiation
is harmful, then I ask you to consider these questions:

On which sources of information
are you relying for assurances of safety? Do those sources have extensive
backgrounds in the biological effects of radio-frequency radiation?
Are those sources free from vested interests in cellular communications
or other wireless technologies?
Are those sources more authoritative on health issues than the International
Agency for Research on Cancer of the World Health Organization? That
organization linked radio-frequency radiation, and in particular cellular
radiation, to cancer back in 2011?
Are those sources more authoritative on health issues than the National
Toxicology Program (NTP) at the National Institutes of Health? The NTP
confirmed the link of radio-frequency radiation, and in particular cellular
radiation, to cancer in 2016 and to DNA damage more broadly in 2017?
These findings are the result of the largest study ($25 million) that
the NTP has ever conducted of any toxin.
Have you read some of the scientific research literature that connects
radio-frequency radiation to biological effects and that has been funded
by impartial sources?
If your answer to the last question above is “No”, I hope
that you will explore at least some of the vast biomedical research
literature available.

Also, for an excellent online
overview of the impact of wireless technology on health, please see
the web site of the Environmental Health Trust (https://ehtrust.org/).
This organization is led by Devra Davis, Ph.D., M.P.H. who has had a
distinguished career of public service in support of public health.
Dr. Davis was a member of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change that was named a joint recipient of the Nobel Prize
for Peace in 2007.

The BioInitiative Report
updated in 2012, prepared by 29 authors from ten countries, reviewed
1800 studies and conclude,“EMF and RFR are preventable toxic exposures.
We have the knowledge and means to save global populations from multi-generational
adverse health consequences by reducing both ELF and RFR exposures.
Proactive and immediate measures to reduce unnecessary EMF exposures
will lower disease burden and rates of premature death.”

It is the councils responsibility
to protect the residents of Milton Keynes, the council needs to critically
consider the potential impact of the 5th generation wireless infrastructure
on the health and safety of the residents of Milton Keynes before proceeding
to deploy this infrastructure.

The International EMF Scientist
Appeal is evidence of growing concern among EMF experts world-wide.
This Appeal is currently signed by 225 scientists in 41 nations of the
world. All of them have conducted EMF studies published in peer-reviewed
scientific journals that reported biological and adverse health effects
caused by human-made sources of EMF. The combination of these reported
findings lends credibility to the Appeal’s strong recommendation
for review of the current EMF exposure guidelines set by the FCC, as
these guidelines are considered to be obsolete and inadequate to protect
human health and the environment. https://www.jrseco.com//wp-content/uploads/2017-08_EU_5G_Appeal_10_August_2017.pdf?c=cf13ce20305c

I therefore request that
MKC prohibit local “small cell” wireless antennas , including
equipment collocated on existing structures or located on new “poles,
structures, or non-pole structures,” including those within the
public right-of-way and buildings.

Not all Milton Keynes residents
want their homes, neighborhoods, towns, and rural country-sides to be
polluted with RFR. Telecom deployment serves the unbounded profit motive
of telecom corporations. What is in the best public interest is to avoid
unnecessary RFR exposures.

Please will you kindly clarify if you are aware the internationally-accepted
guidelines from the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation
Protection only consider the thermal & not the biological effects?